Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor. But every once in a while it's a dildo. Of course, it's company policy never to imply ownership in the event of a dildo. We have to use the indefinite article, "a dildo", never "your dildo."

Parent is a Fight Club reference, for those who haven't seen it.

All-in-all, this is a step up if we didn't also arrest the person whose toothbrush it is.

Normally "Machine language" refers to the 1's and 0's that are readable by a machine or virtual machine (or hybrid thereof), not the context-free-grammar that is a human-readable computer language that can be interpreted or compiled.

Also, the relative harm of overly strong self-confidence or self-reliance as opposed to lack of confidence and codependency depend, necessarily, on the situation and degree. Codependency may be helpful if working in a team, for example, where you are actually codependent. Some limits on confidence may be helpful if you have a boss who likes to do things a certain way.

Analysts will post on slashdot. Some of them. Sometimes. Operations people are less likely to.

Professional liars work in law, public relations, lobbying, or politics. And not everyone in those professions qualifies. Relatively few intelligence analysts are professional liars. Some have unusual worldviews, but it's not the same thing.

Actually, it's a really great lesson on groupthink. If you listen to even the most *educated* people from both sides of the conflict--the ones who know every detail since the '47 war and before--it is AMAZING how different their story is based on which side they're on. And it's (usually) not that they're wrong, it's just that their vision is so incredibly polarized.

I once listened to a lecture by the director of the Israeli counter-terror institute and then a lecture by a Palestinian Professor from either NYU or Columbia. They talked about the same peace treaties and the same events, but the stories they told and the perspectives they had on those events were *radically* different. Obi Wan Kenobi was right--a great many of the truths we cling to depend a great deal on our own point of view.

Both sides do things that are really uncool, and both sides have things done to them that are really terrible. It makes it easy for both sides to perpetuate their narratives of hate. As long as that happens--as long as there is no real incentive and genuine effort on *both* sides to see the conflict from the other's point of view and to *stop* it--the conflict will continue.

First, it was by comparison to Voyager. Second, B5 broke a *lot* of ground, but TNG was also quite good, just a very different sort of show. And for its time it was excellent--just not as revolutionary from a sci-fi perspective. (E.g. the broad story arcs of B5, and Stracynski's talent at the best moments). On the Trek side, there was the Wounded, the Measure of a Man, Chain of Command... there were quite a few good episodes in there. One lesson from both, of course, is get a Shakespearean actor in there. Andreas Katsulas and Patrick Stewart did great jobs. But there were also strong casts, especially on the B5 side. (On the TNG side, even Marina Sirtis had one particularly good episode, Face of the Enemy.)

Well, to a businessman, he *does* look like the victim. He's not, but he looks like it, because the FCPA basically makes the company responsible for every bribe one of their employees pays to get something done. This results in many companies greatly curtailing the business they do overseas, especially in countries where bribery is the rule rather than the exception. I'm sure it costs the US billions every year--effectively, a price of morality. As it turns out, most businesses are more concerned about profits--it's very easy, when you're looking at making money, to overlook the broader policy concerns with bribery.

And that's in addition to the "screwed because of what one guy in Britain did"

Any "university" or "college" that can't tolerate non-PC opinions isn't a college at all.

The policy we're talking about isn't about "tolerating" opinion, it is about using taxpayer funded resources to promote and advertise those opinions. That is not OK.

In class, you should be able speak your mind in whatever PC or non-PC way you like.

Actually, it is okay, up to a point. Constitutional Law has rules about what you're allowed to do at a limited public forum. And about what you're allowed to do in a fully public forum, like a sidewalk. Sidewalks are also taxpayer funded resources, but they still enjoy constitutional protection. The same goes for a plaza or public park, like Boston Common. There are limit on free speech that apply even in those places, but the rule isn't a cut-and-dried taxpayer funding issue.